Hawkeye recently had a very enlightening post on Avani Avittam and the purpose of it. In the comments section the discussion turned towards whether a woman can recite Veda mantras and this (please read the entire comment to get a better picture) is what hawkeye said in reply, I am only quoting a part of it.
Coming back, I did some research mostly on the web, so I won't claim they are authentic. They are probably only as authentic as hawkeye's claim that there is research being performed to see if women grow mustaches by reciting the vedas. But anyway, it is a different point of view and I think it is important to know of the other side too.
What I learnt was this. Once upon a time, there was the vedic age - there is not much historical evidence about this period. Most of what we know about this period comes from the Rig Veda. During this time women were treated at par with men, there was no discrimination, suppression nothing. Apparently girl children also went to vedic schools to learn the vedas, they even had 'Upanayanam' done so that they can pursue vedic studies. ( There is actually a community in Karnataka, where women wore "yagnyopaveetham" atleast until 25 years ago).Moreover the studying of the vedas was not restricted to any class of the society, anyone could with the dedication and discipline could do it. It was a pretty liberal society.
So women at one time did learn the vedas, gayathri mantra, got an education like men and participated in the society. They didn't become more masculine or anything like that. This was all in the good old vedic age. I also read that women did not marry until the age of 16-17, till which they got an education, while men probably pursued education for a longer time. Marriages were also equal partnerships and the woman was treated true to the title "Ardhangini".
Sometime later this guy Manu who compiled the Manusmriti ( There is some dispute about the interpretations of Manu's code. But some of the Hindu law is still based on this outdated text.)really screwed it up for women and a lot of people in the societly. He came up with a set of laws that the society should follow and he was the one that came up with "women are incapable of being independent, so they are dependent of their fathers, then their husbands, finally on their sons". The practice of tonsuring of head after the husband dies, later on Sati, all became common pratices in medieval India. Women slowly lost their status, they were married off really young, their education was considered not necessary. They were restricted to doing low skill work around the house while patriarchy slowly took over. Manu gave patriarchy its stronghold.
Somewhere along the way women stopped learning the vedas because of patriarchy and it has continued to this day. Now there are people giving pseudo scientific evidence that women should not because it will increase testosterone levels and they will grow facial hair etc. It is just patriarchy talking.
But what is known is that hormones like testosterone affect the voice. Voice-breaking in boys is because of testosterone. Men who are into body building increase testosterone levels and it changes their voices. It happens to women who build bodies too. Women's menstrual cycle affects their voice because of the changes in hormones. Some professional opera singers take a break and don't sing during that time. Hormones changing voice is known, but vocal cord vibrations changing your hormone pattern seems a little far-fetched.
Isn't the fact that women did once upon a time learn the vedas and did procreate, led normal lives, enough to not believe in what is being given as a reason today. There is no need for any scientific research to prove why women should not study the vedas, if at all it is being done, it is being done only to satisfy the male ego.
This reply really caught my attention because it seemed like there was some science behind it . I grew up in a household where my grandfather wouldn't teach us girl children the "Vishnu Sahasranaamam" because we were girls. The reason was never given, my grandfather only said "Pombanaatti ellam Vishnu Sahasranaamam solla koodadhu, 'Daya Shathakam' solli tharen". (Women should not say "vishnu sahasranamam', I will teach you 'daya shatakam'). Anyway I never learnt either from my grand father. And moreover there have been many more instances where we were given "Pombanaatti ellam solla koodadhu" line without any reason. We were kids and even though we didn't like it we couldn't make our grandfather teach us any of those things. But I digress.
Also there is the whole biomechanics theory, which folks are still researching. It is a long held theory that reciting certain vedic mentras, the way and meter in which it is recited causes chemical reactions within the body results in overdose of testosterone and development of certain physical features. this could be the reason why rishis of yesteryears were super potent and could impregnate women at will. it also causes a masculine body structure with flattening of breats etc,. people i argued with have told me that this is the reasonw hy women werent allowed to say it. most 'feminists' who say it today are 'smart' enough to say it after a child birth or two.
i have no knowledge of this science. however, i will not disregard it as granny's tale. when i have better knowledge of all this which maybe anytime from 5 years until forver, i will come back to you with a case recommendation.
Coming back, I did some research mostly on the web, so I won't claim they are authentic. They are probably only as authentic as hawkeye's claim that there is research being performed to see if women grow mustaches by reciting the vedas. But anyway, it is a different point of view and I think it is important to know of the other side too.
What I learnt was this. Once upon a time, there was the vedic age - there is not much historical evidence about this period. Most of what we know about this period comes from the Rig Veda. During this time women were treated at par with men, there was no discrimination, suppression nothing. Apparently girl children also went to vedic schools to learn the vedas, they even had 'Upanayanam' done so that they can pursue vedic studies. ( There is actually a community in Karnataka, where women wore "yagnyopaveetham" atleast until 25 years ago).Moreover the studying of the vedas was not restricted to any class of the society, anyone could with the dedication and discipline could do it. It was a pretty liberal society.
So women at one time did learn the vedas, gayathri mantra, got an education like men and participated in the society. They didn't become more masculine or anything like that. This was all in the good old vedic age. I also read that women did not marry until the age of 16-17, till which they got an education, while men probably pursued education for a longer time. Marriages were also equal partnerships and the woman was treated true to the title "Ardhangini".
Sometime later this guy Manu who compiled the Manusmriti ( There is some dispute about the interpretations of Manu's code. But some of the Hindu law is still based on this outdated text.)really screwed it up for women and a lot of people in the societly. He came up with a set of laws that the society should follow and he was the one that came up with "women are incapable of being independent, so they are dependent of their fathers, then their husbands, finally on their sons". The practice of tonsuring of head after the husband dies, later on Sati, all became common pratices in medieval India. Women slowly lost their status, they were married off really young, their education was considered not necessary. They were restricted to doing low skill work around the house while patriarchy slowly took over. Manu gave patriarchy its stronghold.
Somewhere along the way women stopped learning the vedas because of patriarchy and it has continued to this day. Now there are people giving pseudo scientific evidence that women should not because it will increase testosterone levels and they will grow facial hair etc. It is just patriarchy talking.
But what is known is that hormones like testosterone affect the voice. Voice-breaking in boys is because of testosterone. Men who are into body building increase testosterone levels and it changes their voices. It happens to women who build bodies too. Women's menstrual cycle affects their voice because of the changes in hormones. Some professional opera singers take a break and don't sing during that time. Hormones changing voice is known, but vocal cord vibrations changing your hormone pattern seems a little far-fetched.
Isn't the fact that women did once upon a time learn the vedas and did procreate, led normal lives, enough to not believe in what is being given as a reason today. There is no need for any scientific research to prove why women should not study the vedas, if at all it is being done, it is being done only to satisfy the male ego.
30 comments:
Sowmya,
you could have pointed out that I merely mentioned that there were two sides to the argument and that i was open to both sides.
this says almost says I am against women. I never said such a thing. I basically refused to comment because whatever I knew was half-baked and I do not trust anybody on this.
Saying something like " communists exist" does not mean I am a communist myself.
sorry...will add that too...my mistake :-)
and on this post...
disclaimer: saying "I am okay with women practcing whatever they want" is itself a sexist statement. it is a moot discussion. they can do whatever they want. part of the 'bill of rights' thingie. i am assuming this is an academic discussion of 'definitions' and 'practises'.
if i were to reply in one line it would be
women don't say vedas for the same reason dinosars are extinct today.
but the above is an observation.
a medium-sized analysis would be
1. no one knows the truth. it is futile to make conjectures. which means both-sides are doing futile things.
/* Isn't the fact that women did once upon a time learn the vedas and did procreate */
2. The word i marked out in bold. How sure are you? - leads back to the futility argument in (1)
/* There is no need for any scientific research to prove why women should not study the vedas, if at all it is being done, it is being done only to satisfy the male ego. */
3. I certainly think your emotions got over your ability to do a dispassionate analysis here. I agree you want women to study the vedas. It is a valid desire. but it can be equally argued that such a 'ban' on scientific research is done to satisfy the 'politically correct' view than women and men are equal.
4. I believe science should not be used to validate anything concerning religion. 'science' and religion' are two semi-parallel concepts. if they intersect it is coincidence not causality.
5. regarding 'ban on reading vedas' All you need to find out if such a law exists. if it exists as part of the definition of the religion - you either agree with it (or) disagree with it. Disagreeing with leads you to practising the mutant of the religion that is to your liking and not the actual one.
6. Following a mutant religion is not a bad thing. It is a matter of 'fit'. A 'fit' between your ideals and the kind of 'religion' you want to practice.
7. last but not the least. Discrimination based on gender is as valid as discrimination based on merit. it is purely discimination based on differences.
on a humoros note - if 'aiyappa' walked out and said that he doesnt want women worshipping him would only lead to women denying 'aiyappa' as a god. which only means that your desire of the 'ideal' god may have a phase lag with the 'real' nature of the actual god, who could turn out to be a discrimnatory person.
and if this gets in Nilu's radar - you are to blame :-) not me. he is suddenly holding me responsible for everything.
" innum enna enna vambula maati vida poriyo. "
i was thinking of a brief period of hibernation etc. my wife is reading this comments section. my online & offline life is effectively screwed :-)
hawkeye,
sorry again if the post seemed like I was taking a jab at u. bad composition skills.
1 & 2. I did tell in my post that my claims were only as valid as your claim that rishis were virile, full of testosterone because they chanted vedas. No one knows that too. It is just a guess or it is an opinion formed from hearing various tales. So the 'fact' that women chanted the vedas and procreated is like this only. It is what I have read, I don't have proof, just like you don't have proof about rishis sexual prowess.
3. I agree, enakku kovam thaan.
4 & 5. I agree that science should not be used to validate religion. But this is not religion, this is patriarchy. I am sure religion itself doesn't say "women should not read vedas", it is those who interpret it say that and for most part in our history it was patriarchy that intepreted religion. I find solace in beleiving that there was time when things were glorious for women, I may be foolish but feels good.
6. Religion itself has been subjected to so many mutations, what we believe today is probably very different from what it was in the ancient days. Every one has his/her own 'fit' and no one knows the actual one. So how far we deviate from the actual one is not measurable.
7. I think the need to discriminate comes from a sense of superiority and an insecurity of sorts. That is how patriarchy took over.
Did you read the TRS Iyengar link. He actually claims somewhere in the site that female frogs ran away hearing the gayatri mantra while male frogs stayed, because it affected their hormone balance. Idhellam paduchuttu thaan enakku orey kovam.
I am sorry if this gets you into anymore trouble online. Un offline life'kku naan poruppu illai, adhu un 'Kanni Raasi' panna velai.
Well, as far as women chanting vedas, I think that there's reasonable proof to believe that it happened.
- we know that Mandana Mishra's (the guy with whom Sankaracharya had his debate) wife was a scholar of her own right. Surely no one kept her from chanting anything.
- Ten of the stanzas in the Rig Veda are attributed to Maitreyi.
- Then there's Gargi, who also finds mention in the vedas.
This is just off the top of my head. So, if anyone's looking for proof, you can check these names out.
In any case, it might not be a bad idea to do some kind of scientific research. One group of men and women chanting, say Rudram, which the guy claimed is a 'masculine' sloka, anothe group chanting something else, but told that it is Rudram, another group chanting something totalle else, and a last group chanting nothing to calculate baseline and see if there's any real change in hormonal levels. If only to prove the old fogys wrong :-)
To be frank, when I first heard that women were not supposed to chant mantras I burst out laughing. Mostly because the mantras I know - gayatri mantra included were taught to me by my grandmother :)
I think the so-called science behind it is ridiculous. If guys could really build up testosterone in their body by chanting mantras, gyms would be totally out of business. As for the ancient yogis - they had an almost perfect diet, posture, and they did yoga to an extreme. I'm sure all of that contributes much more to any physical superiority they had over normal people.
Mantra chanting directly relates to the mind and the soul, not the body - I believe the supposed benefits of chanting to the body (longevity, good health etc.) come about indirectly from a better mental disposition.
somya,
the blog, its links and comments (pasts present and future) make a great case as to why one should not try to explain religion through 'science' or 'contemporary logic'.
there was an anonymous arguing in my blog to the contrary - i hope he/she sees this
sigh...
Sambar...i like the idea behind your control experiment thought (In any case, it might not be a bad idea to do some kind of scientific research. One group of men and women chanting, say Rudram, which the guy claimed is a 'masculine' sloka, anothe group chanting something else, but told that it is Rudram, another group chanting something totalle else, and a last group chanting nothing to calculate baseline and see if there's any real change in hormonal levels. If only to prove the old fogys wrong :-)...
Only one problem though. You can't get any one to "chant" rudram or any other sanskrit composition, because the chanting has to be done in a specific tone (chanda) etc. Which means the person chanting that has to be a sanskrit scholar. Which also (by likely extrapolation) means that the person probably knows what he/she is chanting, and perhaps knows it by heart (given Sanskrit rote traditions).
So.....unfortunately, a control "blind" experiment here cant be done!
manu's laws are coming haunt the brahmins like never before. this guy has done more harm to hinduism than all the conquerors of india in the last millenium combined.
the poison has permeated to every level of our society. 25% of us are condemned to be the dregs performing menial tasks and to be passed on to the next generation. the rest of the classifications just enough to cause discordance, so that no one considers himself a hindu. it is your caste or group.
and finally the indignity heaped on women. that is another big crime conducted in the name of religion. even the most educated guy, quietly lets his parents chose a girl for him, with the expectations of dowries and paupering the girl's father through wedding expenses. not to mention that the girl is educated, and will bring in money to keep him and his parents in comfort.
compared to above, the taboo against women chanting gayatri is trivial. if i were a woman, i would not want to go near that stuff.
I'll say it again. Relegion has outlived its longevity. Analyzing it is futile.
I don't understand why Hindu apologsists are hell-bent on proving that the so-called "way of life" and the "ancient civilization" has to be infallible. Either way it does'nt make any difference, now.
I find this sort of weird, actually. My dad's a vadhyar, and he insists I learn all the slokas (and yes, vishu sastranamam as well). I have never been told to not recite any one type of prayer.
Sunil
So, can't we have a group of male scholars who are willing to chant 'feminizing' shlokas. Literally bet their manhood?:-)
I am curious at two levels..
- Is it possible to change one's metabolism through chanting shlokas? Some activities do produce changed states of consciousness (like people going into trances when dancing/singing). If it is possible to have longer-term effects, it will be interesting.
- If we can comprehensively disprove it, that's interesting too.
For instance, they conducted a study to see if prayer actually had an effect on post-operative prognosis (it did not).
he he, I guess, ultimately I would like to put these pseudo-scientific gibberish to rest.
sambhar42, I read that there are about 27 woman rishis who are mentioned in the Vedas. Thanks for bringing that up. The problem is no one conducts that kind of research, if you do manage, do let us know the results. The Dalai Lama wanted some neuro scientists to study some monks in meditation and see what they can learn about the brain in that state. I am not sure it happened. He actually believes that science and religion can enrich each other rather than be at conflict. The universe in a single atom is a good book on that.
anshul, i would think the same about the rishis having superior health, good food, no pollution etc. I am sure there are many versions of the Hindu philisophy which claim that the soul has no gender, then why this discrimination to the body.
hawkeye, religion I think has to appeal to the intellect to a certain level...if it does not then the belief goes down, especially if it is contrary to what you know by experience. blind faith - romba kashtam.
sunil, i see what you mean!
phantom363, Manu screwed us up, big time.
i, I thought I was analysing patriarchy :-)
vi, nice to know that!
sambhar42, I am not sure if all that is true.
Good Post! Very Informative discussion!
"The Dalai Lama wanted some neuro scientists to study some monks in meditation and see what they can learn about the brain in that state"
I saw a programme on Discovery channel about the experiments conducted on Tibetian monks to see how they survived the cold climate of the Himalayas without any woolen clothing. Neuro scientists studied the monks in meditation and the results turned out that their body produced so much heat during meditation that the monks in the cold mountains could dry a wet towel during a 10 minute meditation.
I have to say this is the first time I heard of women being told not to chant gayatri mantra. I'm not sure if this is prohibition is prevalent in the North as well but I haven't seen it personally as I learnt it from my own grandparents.
I do know of the Upanayana ceremony and the English translation pretty much said that the ceremony was for all Hindu children to begin learning the vedas- how it got interpreted to start a practice where only boys were given this right I don't know.
While I'm not entirely sure that sound patterns causing hormonal changes is such a far fetched idea, I am rather inclined to believe that the real reason why women aren't allowed to chant those mantras is just to do with male chauvinism.
However... I seriously don't see what women might be losing out on because of that. What's the big deal?
I saw this program on TV. It was about a school for women in Varansi.Girls join there when they are really young. They are taught all the vedas and once they have finished, they are allowed to work like any other male priest.
Fuck that Motherfucker Manu!!
sowmya,
'logic' 'science' and 'intellect' are completely different things.
william tell symphony appeals to my intellect but it neither 'logic' nor 'science'.
anyway.. i am extremely short of tme. and i think you have articulated the true intentions of your post in your reply to my comment (the longer one). this saves me from telling you that apart from a rant...this discussion is futile- because u seem to know it already
'this dude called manu totally screwed it up for women' ... :)) .. you are going to rot in hell. I remember hearing extensively about this character a few years back during my thatha's funeral. You'd be astouned at the verdicts reserved for frivolous crimes. Makes no sense leading a righteous life, end of the day all that matters is the amt of oil in the 'ennai kopparai'. :))
Lets say much of religious knowledge in India is just hear say. unless you point to documentation that says women can or cannot do something. then that document (be it the vedas or the koran) must be seen as a reflection of that times.
"If vedas were said with the right inflections ..." what is the test of right inflections? how would anyone claim to know that one exists?
Even the most sacred document of our times: Our constitution: is great precisely because it can be changed with the demands of the time.
A religious philosohphy about say nature of god or universe is a theory that can be accepted or not based on personal preference and I see no domain of reason where you can verify or test any of the claims or predictions, if any.
But clearly we have made a long headway in understanding the difference between man and woman and their similarities. So much of these "superstitions" have begun to fade away in the presence of knowledge. more knowledge will separate out more of the nonsense from the reality.
until now, has there been any "significant" difference between man and woman in terms of capacity? there are minor ones dictated by biology. none seems to have affected the capacity.
as an example: we now know that in the fields of Africa (and also from Cuban plantation history) women have carried enormous burdens that barriers physical were not broken today but hundreds of years ago. andthese are incidents of one or two women, but statistically significant and comparable to populations of men.
Well, I found this http://www.awgp.org/english/books/gayatri_sadhana_truth_distortions.pdf link off from the wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gayatrilink.
Check out page 27.
Good! At once I got a recognition but for the wrong reason! The "pseudo scientific evidence" needs to be verified not by a small man like me, but the entire scientific community. Fine, I got a chance to read the comments; let's see what's more in store!
Best wishes folks, now it is...
TRS Iyengar
III.55 " Women must be honored and adorned by their fathers, brothers , husbands and brothers-in-law, who desire their own welfare.Where women are honored , the Gods are pleased , but where they are not honored, no sacred rite(Yaagam ) yields rewards".
Wanna guess who wrote that?? .. The answer would be the protagonist (or should I say villian) of this post - Manu ..
It is absolutely silly to make sense out of something that was written more than 2000 years ago - you either follow it or you don't - there is no justification for either one. I guess you already knew that, but not the way you know it now, did you?
SR
Hi
I just got sent this page for a friend of mine as I'm a lady in her 40s Im learning chanting - Ive been chanting for the last 6 years and am currently learning the rudram - I luv chanting and from the time I began chanting people have been commenting on the fact that ladies should not ..
I continue to ignore for the following reason:
1) Connection that i feel when I close my eyes and chant is incomparable and since the feeling is positive I'm of 100% theory that this cant be wrong .
2) I'm by nature a highly energetic person while though this by itself is not bad, it reflected in my driving which was reasonably rash and I found chanting or listening while driving slowed me to a comfortable pace
3) when im really upset i find chanting calms me through the ordeal
so whatever be the verdict I'm not going to give up on chanting ..
take care - Suchie
Hi.. Thanks for this informative article. I really liked it. I also came across this similar site with nice articles and videos on vedic prinicples - http://www.vichaar.tv
I wonder why a female is not allowed to recite Gayatri mantra or learn the Vedas.
isnt God suppose to be only Purusha and everyone else Prakriti.
and further more Sanathana Dharma teaches us " I AM NOT THE BODY"
so why do we still identify with the male and female temporary body?
wont this practice contradict the Mahavakya of the Vedas AHAM BRAHMAASMI AND TAT TVAM ASI.
Post a Comment